In an interesting reversal of the gun lawsuit trend...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-06-26 05:00am

A gun distributor filed suit to recover legal fees spent in defending themselves from a suit filed by the widow of a murder victim.

Link

While Pam Grunow's attorneys asked Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga to impose the entire $24 million damage award against Valor, the gun distributor's attorneys persuaded the judge the jury's verdict was legally inconsistent. Labarga threw out the award, calling the verdict "fatally inconsistent" in that jurors decided the gun was not defective but Valor should have provided better safety measures on it.

The court documents take up dozens of files in the courthouse, and Valor often had half a dozen attorneys working on its behalf, including New York City attorney John Renzulli, who specializes in defending the gun industry throughout the country.

Renzulli, who was the only Valor Corp. attorney who could be reached late Monday, said he doesn't know what the company's defense cost.

"We spent thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars defending this case," said Renzulli, who is not directly handling the request for fees and costs. "I don't know what the bottom line is."

She sued everyone except the people who could reasonably have been blamed: the gun owner and the kid who murdered her husband.

Personally, I hope she winds up having to work 3 jobs for the next 2 decades in order to pay Valor's legal fees

nechronius · Post by **nechronius** » 2003-06-27 03:59am

It's just easier to blame the hammer for crushing the finger than to realize that an improperly place glancing blow resulted in the hammerhead being deflected and striking the finger. In anger we grab the hammer and throw it across the room.

It's human nature to ignore the most obvious faulty component in that scenario; the individual with the improper hammer strike. Except not a single person would blame Stanley or Craftsman or whoever for producing a hammer that could render such a painful or crippling blow.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-27 04:05am

I hope the company gets back every penny

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-06-27 02:31pm

nechronius wrote:It's human nature to ignore the most obvious faulty component in that scenario; the individual with the improper hammer strike. Except not a single person would blame Stanley or Craftsman or whoever for producing a hammer that could render such a painful or crippling blow.

Sounds like a challange to me...
I know what I'm doing this afternoon!

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-28 03:31am

I see this as a great victory for Rationality and Personal Responsibility. Let's hope it starts a trend.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-06-28 07:34am

SPOOFE wrote:I see this as a great victory for Rationality and Personal Responsibility. Let's hope it starts a trend.

Hopefully you are correct.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-06-28 09:50am

Looking at it as objectively as I can (and God knows it's hard to do), I cannot see any legitimate grounds for the suit to have been filed in the first place.

The gun complied with all applicable Federal and State laws at the time of manufacture.
It was sold to the gun shop in compliance with all applicable laws.
The gun was sold to the owner 8 years prior to the shooting, and it was sold in compliance with all applicable laws.
The gun was stolen from the home of the owner by Nathaniel Brazill.
It was then used to kill the teacher.

The firearm functioned as designed. The safety catch was disengaged, the trigger was pulled, and the gun discharged as it was designed to do. There were no defects in the gun.

After the shooting, she settles with the gun owner's and the gun dealer's insurance companies (it's cheaper often to settle than fight) and then sues the distributor alleging that the gun is "unsafe, defective and lacked features that would have prevented a minor from using it."

The gun was safe in that its safety switch functioned properly and that it didn't fire until the trigger was deliberately pulled back.

This is how all guns work. Pull the trigger and then they fire. Some guns have additional manual and automatic safety devices (magazine disconnects, grip safeties, etc), but all guns fire when the trigger is pulled after any safety devices are disengaged.

Until you pull the trigger, a non-defective gun is perfectly safe.
Even the jury agreed that the gun wasn't defective.
As for her last allegation, Star Trek phasers that only let the proper person operate it don't exist in real life.
Smart gun technology is a nice idea, but it's not perfected even now, much less 10 years ago.
Again, the gun met all legal standards for sale at the time of manufacture.

Knowing all of this, I can't see any grounds for her suit.
She was given a chance to prove her case and the judge basically said 'NO YUO'